Is there a threat against free speech in the U.S.?

Protests. Petitions. PC culture. As of late, the question on many Americans’ minds is: Is there a threat against free speech in the U.S.?

Journalists from various popular media sites, such as The Atlantic, The Huffington Post, and New York Magazine have thoroughly covered this issue. Opinions range, specifically in left-wing circles. Some liberals and most conservatives agree that the threat against free speech is a serious problem in young Americans’ discourse. Other liberals, though, believe PC culture is not only productive but within our constitutional right.

In order to discuss the topic, PC culture must first be defined. Much like other social issues, such as feminism or nationalism, the definition differs depending on with whom you speak. The Oxford Dictionary defines political correctness as: “The avoidance, often considered as taken to extremes, of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against.”

Critics have pointed out that those who refer to PC “as taken to extremes” tend to be more concerned with their lack of freedom to say things that hurt marginalized people without others calling them out on their bigotry. These people have been criticized as not actually wanting free speech, but consequence-free speech, if only for themselves.

When PC culture develops into a debate about the threat against free speech, people tend to forget that the first amendment is subjective, fluid, and not always a guaranteed right. For example, the United States Supreme Court defines obscenity, child ponography, and fighting words and offensive speech, among other speech, as unlawful. When the government acts as employer, educator, prison warden, or subsidizer, free speech restrictions run rampant. Essentially, not all speech is protected by the first amendment, and that does include bigoted rhetoric.

Thus, if we are free to offend then we are also free to be offended. This means that we can say whatever we want to an extent and people can hold us accountable for our speech to an extent. This is true for some other developed nations, but many, as pointed out in the aforementioned Huffington Post article, outlaw various forms of hate speech. Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, South Africa, and the United Kingdom define various forms of hate speech as illegal.

Anti-PC advocates also find the atmosphere to hinder free discourse. However, a landmark study referenced in NPR’s article What Research Says About The Consequences Of PC Culture found otherwise. Michelle Duguid, a professor of organizational behavior at Washington University in St. Louis, co-authored a study that researched how political correctness may or may not affect the way people exchange ideas. The researchers analyzed mixed-gender groups who were either exposed to a PC norm (groups discussed an instance of political correctness they’d heard or experiences) or were not. The researchers found that men and women who were exposed to the PC norm before working together generated more ideas, and more novel ideas, than the groups that did not discuss political correctness.

This study slightly conflicts with work done by Greg Lukianoff, constitutional lawyer and the president and CEO of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, and Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist who studies the American culture wars. They worked together to write The Atlantic’s The Coddling of the American Mind. Lukianoff and Haidt contend that trigger warnings, microaggressions, and other movements to “scrub campuses clean of words, ideas, and subjects that might cause discomfort or give offense” actually harm students’ minds, class discourse, and psychological well-being. Lukianoff and Haidt affirm that what is happening on campuses now is unlike the activism we have seen before:

The press has typically described these developments as a resurgence of political correctness. That’s partly right, although there are important differences between what’s happening now and what happened in the 1980s and ’90s. That movement sought to restrict speech (specifically hate speech aimed at marginalized groups), but it also challenged the literary, philosophical, and historical canon, seeking to widen it by including more-diverse perspectives. The current movement is largely about emotional well-being. More than the last, it presumes an extraordinary fragility of the collegiate psyche, and therefore elevates the goal of protecting students from psychological harm. The ultimate aim, it seems, is to turn campuses into “safe spaces” where young adults are shielded from words and ideas that make some uncomfortable. And more than the last, this movement seeks to punish anyone who interferes with that aim, even accidentally. You might call this impulse vindictive protectiveness. It is creating a culture in which everyone must think twice before speaking up, lest they face charges of insensitivity, aggression, or worse.

The article has received a considerable amount of accolades and backlash. You can read about the continuing debate here: Debating the New Campus PC.

Ultimately, what America seems to be battling with now is determining the balance between protecting individuals’ rights to safety and fair treatment, and allowing productive, free discourse. Until we can come to an agreement as a nation on the distinction between free speech and hate speech, we will continue to grapple with this issue.

Further reading:

Not a Very P.C. Thing to Say

What’s Wrong (and Right) in Jonathan Chait’s Anti-P.C. Screed

Black Pathology and the Closing of the Progressive Mind